Few chessplayers today seem to know much about W.H.K. Pollock
(1859-1896), yet in his time he was celebrated for his spectacular
combinations and original style of play. He seldom came first in
events, an exception being the Belfast, 1886 tournament, which he
won with a clean score of 8/8, ahead of Blackburne and Burn. On
the other hand, many of his individual games received high
plaudits from the most demanding critics, as is shown by a brief
compilation of comments by the then world champion, Steinitz:

Pollock v Blackburne, London, 1886: ‘Mr Pollock’s attack in
this game is quite worthy of any aspirant for the highest
mastership.’ International Chess Magazine, August 1886,
page 245.

Weiss v Pollock, New York, 1889: ‘This sacrifice of the queen
for no more than two pieces is based on a most profound and
brilliant idea, such as has very rarely occurred in actual
play.’ ‘Mr Pollock’s play from the 17th move renders this game
one of the finest monuments of chess ingenuity, and altogether
it belongs to the most brilliant gems in the annals of practical
play.’ New York, 1889 tournament book, page 3.

A posthumous distinction for Pollock was being one of the very
few players to be the subject of a biographical games collection
in the nineteenth century. In 1899 Mrs F.F. Rowland of Kingstown,
Ireland brought out Pollock Memories: A collection of Chess
Games, Problems, etc. etc.

A copy lies open before us now, inscribed by her in 1903, and
from it we cull some specimens of Pollock’s ingenious play. The
focus here is on brilliancies, many from offhand games, which are
seldom seen nowadays.

First, an attacking game peculiar in that, until the end, no
white piece goes beyond the third rank:

William Henry Krause Pollock – James Mortimer
London, 1885
Three Knights’ Game

Pollock defeated Steinitz in their only individual encounter
(Hastings, 1895), a game which the victor annotated on pages
396-397 of the September 1895 BCM. Apart from their
intrinsic interest, the notes are significant for being the source
of Pollock’s most famous quote, ‘It is no easy matter to reply
correctly to Lasker’s bad moves.’

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 (‘A favourite opening
with Mr Steinitz in this tournament, in which he has beautifully
demonstrated the efficiency of some new ideas contained in the
last section of the Modern Chess Instructor.’) 4…Qe7
(‘Strangely enough, this valid old defence of the days of the
Berlin ‘Pleiades’ has escaped all notice in the work referred to.
A little story comes in here: Previous to the championship match
between Steinitz and Lasker, at the request of the latter I played
the defence to the Giuoco in a few off-hand games with him at the
Manhattan Chess Club. I adopted this old defence without success,
although Lasker admitted it was new to him. But I told him that
Steinitz would play it against him and beat him if he did not play
the attack differently. (It is no easy matter to reply correctly
to Lasker’s bad moves.) Lasker good humouredly suggested that we
submit the theoretical question to Showalter. However, he did not
adopt this attack against Steinitz. The points of the defence are
well shown in the present game.’) 5 d4 Bb6 6 a4 a5 7 O-O d6 8
d5 (‘This is, as usual, a questionable advance.’) 8…Nd8
9 Bd3 Nf6 (‘White’s ninth move was in order to prevent …f5.
Without doubt Black should now have played for the advance by
9…g6.’) 10 Na3 c6 11 Nc4 Bc7 12 Ne3 Nh5 (‘If 12…cxd5 13
Bb5+, followed by 14 Nxd5. Nor can Black well castle, on account
of 13 Nh4, threatening to establish a knight at f5.’) 13 g3 g6
14 b4 (‘Intending no doubt 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 b5, when it would
be difficult to prevent the posting of the white knight at d5.’) 14…f5
(‘It is necessary for Black to attack, but the situation is a
critical one.’) 15 Ng2 (‘15 dxc6 might have been tried as
an alternative to prevent 15…f4, for if then 15…f4 16 cxb7,
followed by Bb5+ and Nd5.’) 15…cxd5 16 exd5 (‘Preferable
certainly seems 16 Bb5+ and if 16…Bd7 17 exf5, with the threat of
Nxe5 or Bg5 presently.’) 16…Nf7 (‘In order to keep the
queen’s bishop out.’) 17 Re1 O-O (‘Black has now an
excellent position.’) 18 Nd4 Qf6 19 Nb5 Bb6 20 bxa5 Bxa5 21
Be2 Ng7 22 Bd2 Bd7 23 Rf1 Rac8 24 c4 Bb6 25 Be3 Bxe3 26 fxe3 Ng5
(‘Of course an attack by …g5 might be on the cards, but Black
prefers the safer plan of …Ne4 and …Nc5, thus first securing the
queen’s side.’) 27 Nc3 (‘Bad, as yielding the opponent a
splendid opportunity for a king’s side assault.’) 27…f4 28 Qc2
(‘If 28 gxf4 exf4, attacking the knight.’) 28…f3 29 Nh4
(‘If the bishop moves, 29…Nh3+, followed by 30…fxg2+.’) 29…Nf5

It is instructive to compare the above notes with those by
Pillsbury in the Hastings, 1895 tournament book (edited by Horace
F. Cheshire) and, for a modern view, with the annotations of Colin
Crouch in the 1995 monograph on the tournament which he co-wrote
with Kean Haines. Pillsbury’s final note read, ‘Rather an amusing
finish to a very interesting game’.

William Henry Krause Pollock

Who, then, was this man who gathered many scalps yet seemed
primarily concerned with playing exquisite chess and regularly
switched to what today would be called ‘hacking mode’? William
Henry Krause Pollock was born in Cheltenham, England on 21
February 1859, the son of the Rev. William J. Pollock, and was
educated at Clifton College and Somersetshire College, Bath. He
studied for the medical profession and in 1882 qualified as a
licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin. The same
year his first published game and problem appeared in the unlikely
setting of the Irish publication ThePractical Farmer.
As his chess strength developed he became a regular participant in
British tournaments, attracting more attention for individual
games than for his final standing. In 1889 he went to North
America, settling in Baltimore, Maryland. He returned to England
in 1895, and the October issue of that year’s BCM (page
414) described him as ‘a tallish good-looking fellow, courteous
and pleasant, with poetic fancies both in chess and words, and who
sits far back with arms resting on his knees and face almost
touching the board, so that it seemed hardly possible for him to
view the whole’. He was indeed an accomplished writer, although he
left only one book, on the St Petersburg, 1895-96 tournament,
jointly written with James Mason.

By then his health was already in grave decline, and as the
obituary in the November 1896 BCM (pages 441-446) was
later to report, ‘his friends were, however, much pained with his
altered appearance, for signs were evident that the fell disease
consumption was sapping his constitution’. Despite their appeals,
he travelled to Montreal in early 1896, but stayed in North
America for only a few months. In his final column for the Baltimore
News, dated 8 August 1896, he bade farewell:

‘With very great regret, I have to announce that
I am obliged to abdicate the chair of chess editor of this
column. Serious and prolonged trouble of (at least) a
bronchial nature has compelled my severance from my many
delightful chess associations in this country, and I am due to
sail for my paternal home in Bristol on this day, if perchance
complete rest and home treatment may effect a restoration.’

Pollock died at 5 Berkeley Square, Clifton, Bristol on 5 October
1896. He was 37.

Never was his career better summarized than in the BCM
obituary:

‘In the early days of Mr Pollock’s chess career, many people
thought that in him a future English champion would be
forthcoming, and the glories of Staunton and Blackburne be
revived if not eclipsed. But this expectation was not fulfilled,
and Pollock’s chess career must be regarded as a fragment rather
than a whole. Yet it is a fragment no British lover of chess
would willingly part with, for it is full of beautiful promise
and adorned with many chess gems of rare brilliancy. With great
gifts for the game he never attained the highest rank among the
Masters, though it may be doubted whether any one of them
excelled him in actual and potential genius for the game. In
chess, however, he was an idealist. He worshipped at the shrine
of the beautiful. He was not content to do what he could do
easily and well, but strove after the absolute – his own
perception of the perfect. He was above all an artist at the
chessboard. It was not merely “the mate” that he pursued, but
the beauty of the mate; he did not merely want to win, he always
wanted to win in the most artistic manner. And in this pursuit
of the ideal, the practical often suffered. Had he been more
self-seeking, the chess world would have heard more of him
personally. Neither nature nor art had fitted him to be his own
trumpeter; he loved chess for its own sake, and not for the gain
it might bring him, or the reputation he might attain by its
means.’

As a concluding bonne bouche, there follows a very
difficult problem composed by Pollock:

Mate in two

The position is illegal but provides a stiff challenge. Mrs
Rowland’s book (page 158) reported that ‘this very peculiar and
highly original problem was composed by Mr Pollock on the occasion
of giving a lesson on the art of composing at the Baltimore Chess
Association’.

Afterword: The above article first appeared at the Chess
Café in 1998 and was included in A Chess Omnibus (pages
227-233). In the latter source we mentioned that Pollock
Memories was reprinted by Moravian Chess, circa
2001.